Talk:Protection International

Article in development, this NGO works in more than 20 countries, helping civil actors having their rights fulfilled and protected. Reading the wikipedia requirements, i need to gather enough external sources in the next days to gain wiki legitimacy.Quentinnoirfalisse (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability issues
This article remained tagged as a "New article' until March 2011. The following is a discussion copied over from User talk:Kudpung:

Hi, Kudpung, sorry to bother you. I'm just working through some of the historic unreviewed article backlogs and have come across this article. I get the feeling it's been copied and pasted from a source. A google search revels many other sites with the the same text, but they all cite Wikipedia as a source. Even if it is not a copyright violation then it does seem very 'adverty'. I'm not sure if is blatant enough for CSD though, would you mind taking a look? Pol430  talk to me 11:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Scratch the adverty bit Pol430  talk to me 11:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Protection international (with a small 'i') was once tagged for CSD and speedy  deleted because the creator had blanked the page. It  was a very  short one-line stub by  the same creator. There are a lot of sites that  mirror Wikipedia content. If those sites with  this text clearly attribute it to  Wikipedia, that  may  be alright, but  you'll have to  check up  on  our rules about  this. It  may  even be a translation  of a French  text from  somewhere, such  as for example http://www.lamediatheque.be/loc/part_protection_international.php?reset=1&secured= but  this would be harder to  prove without  knowing  some of the sentences in  the original. I  agree, even though you  struck it, that  the page does sound spammy - no organisations whether commercial or not  are allowed to  promote themselves through Wikipedia. You'll need to  check  the creator and see if you  consider  there to  be a WP:COI. A quick random look  at  the refs  show me that  they  may  be what  I  call  'scraping  the barrel for notability'. Many  of the refs seem to  be used by  the article to  justify Protection International's raison d'être, but  such  refs do  not assert notability. The user name Quentinnoirfalisse is a unique coined word but  it  shows up  a couple of times in  Google. A Quentin Falisse has a page on  a social networking  site at http://fr.netlog.com/Quentin0u/shouts, also  Belgian, and also  a black (noir) coloured site -  this may just be conincidences even though  the name is again not  common.
 * Ref #17 is an entirely personal blog  written  by  a Clette Braekmaref http://blog.lesoir.be/colette-braeckman/2009/06/24/affaire-maheshe-une-parodie-de-justice-a-bukavu/ on  WordPress sofware hosted by  lesoir.be, a Belgian  news website owned by   Rossel & Cie. S.A. - if lesoir is a mainstream  newspaper, then the blog  may  be subject  to  the newspaper's editorial controls, but  it  doesn't  look  like it. Rossel & Cie. S.A. seems  to  be a a holding company  for a group of news medias including  print.
 * Ref #6 is a Belgian parliamentary bill about NGO's, but  is not  specifically  about Protection International
 * Ref #7 Is a German parliamentary  bill  concerning  the protection  of NGOs; It  mentions nothing  specific about  Protection  International.
 * Ref #8 Is a Spanish parliamentary  bill  concerning  the protection  of NGOs; It  mentions nothing  specific about  Protection  International, and the cited page numbers don't  gel.
 * Ref #9 Is a Spanish parliamentary  bill  but  according  to  Firefox it  is a risky  website.
 * Ref #11 http://www.reliefweb.int/ocha_ol/pub/idp_gp/idp.html is another United Nations paper on which  Protection  Interbational  bases it  philosophy


 * Nevertheless, this NGO seems to  be important and may  well  be notable -  it  appears to  have the support of the EU. The remaining refs need to  be checked to  see if they  are WP:RS third party  articles about Protection  Internationale. Articles like this are often written in  good faith, but  spam  is spam. If you  have time, do  some more research and let me know how you  get  on - we might  both  learn something. --Kudpung (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)